And you want to imply that anyone who questions the severity of the crisis, the nature of the response or the reasons anyone might be suspicious of various actors motives as if we are starry eyed bleeding hearts at best or comical anarchists at worst.
The current legal regime is a bipartisan mess incapable of handling the influx of migran…
And you want to imply that anyone who questions the severity of the crisis, the nature of the response or the reasons anyone might be suspicious of various actors motives as if we are starry eyed bleeding hearts at best or comical anarchists at worst.
The current legal regime is a bipartisan mess incapable of handling the influx of migrants no matter what their reasons for coming. I think we both agree that reforming that process should be a legislative priority.
But you are fooling yourself if you think you don’t care how your neighbor got here, you’ve been clear about that. You care if they got here legally. Whether they have a case for asylum or not, whether we’ve even tried to determine that status are both irrelevant.
Trump, Orban et al have risen to power by appealing to crude nativist ideologies that demonize immigrants, racial, religious and sexual minorities and women because there are evidently enough racists and fascists out there who feel comfortable cheering them on. Also by cheating a lot then bending the law to cover their asses.
It’s legalism, abusing the law to pervert justice. And speaking of abuse I’m sure a solution to our immigration problems that involves locking people up will work great in our top notch and perfectly humane legal system.
You may think that's my implication, but in principle I actually agree with your suspicions, and with your wish that people could just "get over it" and be like you and I, welcoming any and all immigrants. But in the real world, I'm inclined to agree with Andrew Sullivan's take, that it's as if progressives saw the rise of Right and said "what's the one thing we can do to make this a complete success?" We do both agree that reforming the immigration system is a top priority. (Btw, if you'd like to hear a well-done podcast on immigration, I enjoyed a recent 3-part series on the Freakonomics Radio podcast.) I don't think the legislative process is an irredeemable mess. We almost got there a few months ago, if not for Trump and his political needs. Which begs the question, whence Trump? You think chicken ("Trump, Orban, et al"), I think egg. Just as when I lived in Italy a few years ago, and listening to my Aunt in England pre-Brexit, and growing up on the border with Mexico, and having an immediate family full of immigrants, and volunteering at agencies that assist undocumented farm workers, I've learned there are plenty of people who for reasons both valid and bigoted are against illegal immigration, especially on a massive scale. If you'd have them all be racists and fascists, then that's part of the progressive "mind"set that I'm against. People can disagree with me without being evil. As far as my personal particulars go, I'd recommend for the sake of civilized discourse that you don't presume to know more about how someone is than the person himself.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the “liberals made me racist,” framing of the fascism problem. It’s “look what you made me do,” politics, it excuses reactionary bigotry as understandable if there’s a “crisis.” I’m not trying to paint everyone who disagrees with me as evil, I’m saying that focusing on the legality or illegality of someone’s entry into this country is doing the fascists job for them by signaling that it is ok to consider immigrants a threat. Because they are CRIMINALS. They BROKE THE LAW! And we can’t just LET people break the LAW!
We don’t get to choose what laws we obey, but we do have a choice in what laws we ENFORCE and how we do so, as well as the rhetoric we deploy in support of those laws.
And you want to imply that anyone who questions the severity of the crisis, the nature of the response or the reasons anyone might be suspicious of various actors motives as if we are starry eyed bleeding hearts at best or comical anarchists at worst.
The current legal regime is a bipartisan mess incapable of handling the influx of migrants no matter what their reasons for coming. I think we both agree that reforming that process should be a legislative priority.
But you are fooling yourself if you think you don’t care how your neighbor got here, you’ve been clear about that. You care if they got here legally. Whether they have a case for asylum or not, whether we’ve even tried to determine that status are both irrelevant.
Trump, Orban et al have risen to power by appealing to crude nativist ideologies that demonize immigrants, racial, religious and sexual minorities and women because there are evidently enough racists and fascists out there who feel comfortable cheering them on. Also by cheating a lot then bending the law to cover their asses.
It’s legalism, abusing the law to pervert justice. And speaking of abuse I’m sure a solution to our immigration problems that involves locking people up will work great in our top notch and perfectly humane legal system.
You may think that's my implication, but in principle I actually agree with your suspicions, and with your wish that people could just "get over it" and be like you and I, welcoming any and all immigrants. But in the real world, I'm inclined to agree with Andrew Sullivan's take, that it's as if progressives saw the rise of Right and said "what's the one thing we can do to make this a complete success?" We do both agree that reforming the immigration system is a top priority. (Btw, if you'd like to hear a well-done podcast on immigration, I enjoyed a recent 3-part series on the Freakonomics Radio podcast.) I don't think the legislative process is an irredeemable mess. We almost got there a few months ago, if not for Trump and his political needs. Which begs the question, whence Trump? You think chicken ("Trump, Orban, et al"), I think egg. Just as when I lived in Italy a few years ago, and listening to my Aunt in England pre-Brexit, and growing up on the border with Mexico, and having an immediate family full of immigrants, and volunteering at agencies that assist undocumented farm workers, I've learned there are plenty of people who for reasons both valid and bigoted are against illegal immigration, especially on a massive scale. If you'd have them all be racists and fascists, then that's part of the progressive "mind"set that I'm against. People can disagree with me without being evil. As far as my personal particulars go, I'd recommend for the sake of civilized discourse that you don't presume to know more about how someone is than the person himself.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the “liberals made me racist,” framing of the fascism problem. It’s “look what you made me do,” politics, it excuses reactionary bigotry as understandable if there’s a “crisis.” I’m not trying to paint everyone who disagrees with me as evil, I’m saying that focusing on the legality or illegality of someone’s entry into this country is doing the fascists job for them by signaling that it is ok to consider immigrants a threat. Because they are CRIMINALS. They BROKE THE LAW! And we can’t just LET people break the LAW!
We don’t get to choose what laws we obey, but we do have a choice in what laws we ENFORCE and how we do so, as well as the rhetoric we deploy in support of those laws.
That's okay, I had no expectation of convincing you of anything. You're not buying it has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong.